By Mark Anderson
As the World Health Organization’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) wraps up its eighth session to draft a world pandemic treaty—slated to conclude March 1—its ninth session will run March 18-28, amid a flurry of press releases and other announcements that all point toward the INB’s stated goal of drafting this “instrument” by May 24 at the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva.
Click the Link Below to Listen to the Audio of This Article
In Dec. 2021, in year two of the Covid-19 pandemic, the WHA created the INB “to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response,” a recent WHO press release recalled.
What’s less known, however, is that the INB has an official “Bureau” comprised of just six officers, one from each of the WHO’s six global regions. There are two co-chairs. The Bureau “work(s) together to coordinate the work of the INB” and “facilitate the process, including for negotiations,” as the WHO describes it, along with constant assurances that the INB Bureau only does things “as agreed by the member states.”
The Bureau, as an offshoot of the INB, which stems from the WHO, which, in turn, stems from the UN system itself, is engaging in a full-court press to claim that this “treaty absolutely won’t infringe on national sovereignty.
UN SYSTEM: AUTOMATIC PROBLEM
Such claims are easy to believe if you uncritically breeze through a Sept. 2023 article by the INB Bureau published in the British medical journal, The Lancet. The six authors, none of whom represent the U.S. directly, had this to say:
Although the process of drafting a pandemic accord has been transparently informed to global communities … there has been a substantial amount of misinformation related to the contents of the WHO Convention, Agreement, or Other International Instrument on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response (WHO CA+) circulated on [social media] platforms. …
This … includes assertions that this pandemic treaty threatens national sovereignty, that WHO would deploy troops to enforce the treaty, and that national armed forces would be deployed to implement the treaty under UN orders. There have been rumors of vaccine mandates and digital passports enabling WHO to track individuals’ movements. All these claims are categorically false and have been debunked by independent media outlets and fact checkers.
To address the Bureau’s general statement to debunk “that this treaty threatens national sovereignty,” the very act of the U.S. joining the UN System in 1945 was accession to a supranational government established on land along New York’s East River donated by the subversive Rockefeller family. The UN has a World Court, a General Assembly, and a Security Council that operates as an executive body.
Plus, the harsh effects on U.S. sovereignty through its UN membership started immediately. The 1950-53 Korean War became the first UN war and was the first undeclared war by the U.S. There have been no U.S.-declared wars ever since. Furthermore, Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield in Iraq saw the UN Security Council calling many of the shots. And UN protocols and “studies” espousing unfettered migration have become literal blueprints for the collapse of national borders, especially the U.S. southern border.
Besides, the UN Charter and various other UN covenants, treaty drafts, and press releases are replete with shifty language that treats all human rights as mere revocable privileges, not God-given endowments that are beyond the reach of any government.
To summarize, consider the following highly fluid statement by the Bureau in its Lancet piece:
Sovereignty entails that WHO member states, in accordance with the UN Charter and general principles of international law, possess the sovereign right to enact and implement legislation in alignment with their health policies by upholding the purposes and objectives of the WHO CA+ and carrying out the obligations under the WHO CA+ in a manner consistent with the principles of the sovereign equality and the territorial integrity of member states.
Moreover, the Bureau wrote:
The WHO CA+ was drafted by countries through the INB’s processes and is expected to be agreed upon by the World Health Assembly in 2024. This step will not give the WHO CA+ international legal effect until an as yet undetermined number of countries ratify, at which point it will become part of international law, binding those countries that have agreed to it. The right of a sovereign state to ratify the accord, or not to ratify it, is not subject to WHO overruling.
In other words, nations can ratify or not, but if they do, it will “bind those countries that have agreed to it” on the basis of “international law.” That’s classic doublespeak.
The noted WHO watchdog James Roguski told this writer that abusive federal and state officials, including Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, “did not need a treaty to abuse you in 2020.” He’s correct.
But if the treaty comes into force, they’ll have that much more of a “mandate” to justify more lockdowns and perhaps more coercive vaccine mandates when the next pandemic is declared, even if the treaty is treated like “soft law.”
Hardly more need be said as to how urgent it is to stop the treaty.
